Consider the above definition – “distinguished from a boy or woman”. Men are different. It’s not rocket science. The part men play in society is different to that of women (what do you mean says who?). We are physically and emotionally different. Interestingly enough, venturing into this area of defining a man’s or woman’s role can be defined as abuse by way of ‘using male privileges’. Yes sir (or madam). More on this later.

As a society we have become so obsessed with over –analysing everything around us. Every part of human behaviour must be categorised and explained. If you were to have a tough week at work, you’re suffering from depression. A child going through the ‘terrible twos’ has ADHD. A mother tired and drained, while recovering from the bodily trauma which is child birth has ‘post natal depression’. For every boffin in a white coat that classifies a condition, another boffin in a white coat has a counter argument against it. Yet we base our lives and make critical decisions based upon ‘theories’ and ‘opinions’. The ‘experts’ among us seem to be better at discovering hidden meanings and dissecting subtle psychological nuances in our daily speech and actions, than a child finding the strategically hidden broccoli in his or her dinner.

What does this have to do with the pacification of the modern man? Well, a great deal. Since we’re not happy without analysing to death every aspect of our existence, we now find ourselves walking on egg shells out of fear of offending the politically correct brigade. It seems as though as time passes we need to change aspects of society – “oh that was so yesterday” or “this is the 21st century now”. Since when does the passing of time necessitate a review of every aspect of society? I agree there are positives to the evolution of society in terms of battling prejudices such as racism. Segregation was the norm in some parts of the U.S.A. and we’ve progressed leaps and bounds since then with Barack Obama as President (I’ve heard rumours he’s originally from Pakistan, but these are baseless). This is a positive change in society.

However, what I’m referring to is when a man was a man. If we refer back to the previously cited definition of ‘man’ we can see he is “distinguished from a boy or woman”. In today’s society the only distinguishable feature that seems to be acceptable to mention, is the fact that a man has a different sexual organ to that of a woman (even this obstacle can be overcome if one so desires, with a brief trip to a doctor in Brazil, Harley St. – less exotic – or hey even the NHS can do it for you).

You can no longer say “that’s a man’s job” or “the man should do that or take care of that”. Even worse is if you were to say “that’s a woman’s job”. You would be lynched by a mob wielding rolled up copies of Cosmopolitan in one hand and clutch bags in the other. You would be guilty of using ‘male privileges’ (I will explain this term in more detail later). This is why Richard Simmons is such a happy man. He has the best of both worlds. But for the rest of us men, call us old fashioned romantics if you like, we wonder why when most things around us have to be categorised and pigeon holed, the definition of man and woman is blurred and undefined?

In fact let’s look at this deeper. We hear a lot of speech these days about equality. To be equal to something means to be the same as it. But since we know the definition of man is “distinguished from a boy or woman” we face a dilemma. Men and women are not the same, yet they are equal? I don’t believe the issue here is merely a matter of semantics. If we acknowledge the difference between the two sexes how do we define equality? I think the way around this problem is to know when we use the term ‘equal’. For example, a woman pilot can argue that she is just as able to fly an aircraft as well as a man, or a female in the field of Information Technology is just as capable as her male colleagues. A woman can argue her point of equality here. However it seems on occasion, equality is not the aim, as we still see women being given ‘female privileges’. I spoke earlier about ‘male privileges’ and how a man expecting and enforcing these may be deemed as being guilty of domestic abuse under the IDAP program. This is not equality.

Let me clarify: equality means not being given preference over another, unless by merit. It wouldn’t be fair to give a job to a woman over a more qualified man for the reasons of gender alone (positive discrimination, for example) – and vice versa. BUT, and it’s a big but (keep your mind on track here guys) if we were to examine a situation where a marriage or civil partnership breaks down and the matter of child custody is raised, what is the norm in this case? Favour is given to the mother more often than not. Why? Well, because courts at the present moment in time would see the woman as the sole or primary carer and naturally “children are better off with their mother”. However, if women are out there going toe to toe with men in the corporate arena fighting for equality, why then are ‘female privileges’ given to the woman? Let’s flip the coin over. A man is not as nurturing or capable of raising children as a woman? What happened to equality?…